Rate Joe Louis' chin

There's no proof whatsoever of that.

 

I agree with this, and I think that some other things would have happened if Louis had a weak chin.

For one thing he would almost certainly have picked up a loss on the way up, and it wouldn't have had to be against a top fighter of the era.

I mean he was fighting top contenders after nine months ffs!

Then a fighter with a weak chin, managing 26 title defenses, without getting stopped?

Even in a weak era, that is obviously not going to happen.

Wouldn't there at least have been an Andy Ruiz type spoiler among them somewhere?

Then in his comeback, he would not have been able to rely on his reflexes to protect him any more, and it probably wouldn't have taken Rocky Marciano to lower the final curtain!

 

Well said Goo.

 

Good stuff!!!

 

There is never proof when you are debating which of two punchers hit harder.

However it is highly unlikely that the hardest puncher of the 60s or 80s, hit a lot harder than the hardest puncher of the 30s, since punchers are basically born.

 

Walcott and Louis were the same age. Robberies happen, Louis vs. Walcott 1 was one of them.

Yes Louis won the second match via come from behind KO. He was way down on points. Walcott, for whatever reason, was showboating and got caught late. In their two fights Walcott floored Louis 3 times and probably won 18 of the 26 rounds.

Yes, Louis, was shot for Rocky. Sharkey was even more shout for Louis. I used Rocky was one of the best fighter Rocky fought, along with Schmeling, M. Bear, Charles, and Walcott. His record in these fights on fair scorecards is...3-3

 

Well I see the person who claimed that has been banned again. That makes at least 3 times ( Hard to tell with his multiple accounts under different names ), he should be out.

A score of 137 would put someone as " very gifted " with less than 2.2% of the testing population being above that score.

IQ scale Interpretation of IQ score % of population

above 130 Very gifted 2.1%
121-130 Gifted 6.4%
111-120 Above average intelligence 15.7%
90-110 Average intelligence 51.6%

Back to boxing, Bobby Czyz was actually a Mensa boy. Professional boxing has very few of them,

 

It doesn't matter, Louis fought longer, had much more fights and much more wear and tear on his body.

You don't know that.

Walcott fought the same way for whole two fights, Louis just started to time his awkward movement. It wasn't a fluke, Louis stopped him cleanly with perfect combination.

Again, you don't know that. Besides, Louis was past his prime against Walcott.

Sharkey fought far less fights than Louis and was much younger. I don't see any reason to believe that.

 

As I said, I got better score than that. It's not impossible to achieve and I'm just a normal physics student.

 

On the topic of Walcott vs Louis 1
2/3 of those at Ringside felt Walcott won.
Walcott 's corner was in distress when the decision was announced. The pain of a robbery.
Louis had the body language of a loser. He knew he lost.
And this was in MSG, Joe Louis house. The crowd which you can clearly hear let out a thunderous boo! Louis was their hero.
On the film, Walcott is the better. If you score not he 10 point must system, which this fight was not, there is NO WAY Louis wins.

Walcott vs Louis 2:
Walcott was way ahead in the 2nd match, he showboated for no reason and got nailed. Watch the film. Again the two were the same age when they fight. Walcott had the tougher road, by far.

Sharkey:
Sharkey was done for before he entered the ring for Louis. He was 2-4-1 in his last 7 fights. Louis was Sharkey's 53'd and final fight

 

I never said impossible, but the guy had mental issues and lied. Most students who study Physics are on the smarter side.

I think I've spent enough time on a banned poster.

Let me know if you ever figure out how gravity, electricity, and magnetism can levitate large objects!

 

You keep repeating the same thing, agree to disagree then.

 

What do you mean? Are you questioning the laws of physics?

 

It is very likely that the hardest puncher of the 60's,70's, 80's, 90's hit a lot harder than the hardest puncher of the 30's, cause the HW's in general were a lot bigger and far more skilled.

 

there is actually very little difference in size between the heavyweights of the 30s, and those of the 80s, if any at all.

It is only in the 90s when fighters start bulking up, that we see major size increases.

Power has naff all to do with skill, except at the most basic levels of the sport, and there were technicians in the 30s, and good as any since.

There is no reason to think that the hardest puncher from the 1980s, would hit harder than the hardest puncher from the 1880s.

The question of who was the hardest puncher over that period, would be down to a genetic lottery.